More Covid-19 Reinfections Found, But Researchers Urge Caution (statnews.com) 139
That Covid-19 reinfection in Hong Kong was followed by similar reports in Belgium and the Netherlands. It was announced today that a 27-year-old woman in Karnataka, India also tested positive for the disease a second time (though the government is still seeking confirmation), and now researchers in Nevada are also reporting a "likely" case of reinfection.
The health-news site Stat reports: What caught experts' attention about the case of the 25-year-old Reno man was not that he appears to have contracted SARS-CoV-2 (the name of the virus that causes Covid-19) a second time. Rather, it's that his second bout was more serious than his first. Immunologists had expected that if the immune response generated after an initial infection could not prevent a second case, then it should at least stave off more severe illness. That's what occurred with the first known reinfection case, in a 33-year-old Hong Kong man.
Still, despite what happened to the man in Nevada, researchers are stressing this is not a sky-is-falling situation or one that should result in firm conclusions. They always presumed people would become vulnerable to Covid-19 again some time after recovering from an initial case, based on how our immune systems respond to other respiratory viruses, including other coronaviruses. It's possible that these early cases of reinfection are outliers and have features that won't apply to the tens of millions of other people who have already shaken off Covid-19. "There are millions and millions of cases," said Michael Mina, an epidemiologist at Harvard's T.H. Chan School of Public Health. The real question that should get the most focus, Mina said, is, "What happens to most people...?"
Researchers are finding that, generally, people who get Covid-19 develop a healthy immune response replete with both antibodies (molecules that can block pathogens from infecting cells) and T cells (which help wipe out the virus). This is what happens after other viral infections.
The health-news site Stat reports: What caught experts' attention about the case of the 25-year-old Reno man was not that he appears to have contracted SARS-CoV-2 (the name of the virus that causes Covid-19) a second time. Rather, it's that his second bout was more serious than his first. Immunologists had expected that if the immune response generated after an initial infection could not prevent a second case, then it should at least stave off more severe illness. That's what occurred with the first known reinfection case, in a 33-year-old Hong Kong man.
Still, despite what happened to the man in Nevada, researchers are stressing this is not a sky-is-falling situation or one that should result in firm conclusions. They always presumed people would become vulnerable to Covid-19 again some time after recovering from an initial case, based on how our immune systems respond to other respiratory viruses, including other coronaviruses. It's possible that these early cases of reinfection are outliers and have features that won't apply to the tens of millions of other people who have already shaken off Covid-19. "There are millions and millions of cases," said Michael Mina, an epidemiologist at Harvard's T.H. Chan School of Public Health. The real question that should get the most focus, Mina said, is, "What happens to most people...?"
Researchers are finding that, generally, people who get Covid-19 develop a healthy immune response replete with both antibodies (molecules that can block pathogens from infecting cells) and T cells (which help wipe out the virus). This is what happens after other viral infections.
The problem is 30-40% of Americans (Score:5, Informative)
I personally know somebody who thinks the CDC reported death toll is a hoax. They're not even pushing that nonsense about "only 6% died of COVID" (i.e. doesn't understand what a comorbidity is or that 11,000 healthy people died of the disease), they just plain think the death toll numbers are fake...
Unless we get some top down changes in the coming months then we won't be able to get this pandemic under control.
Re: (Score:3)
won't take a vaccine. So if the immune response is short lived then it's going to be really hard to put out the virus. Double so because when a vaccine drops there will be a campaign to discourage mask wearing from that 30-40% because they're desperate to get back to "normal".
I'm waiting for some idiots to start doing what they were doing with chicken pox and having "COVID parties" to deliberately infect their kids in lieu of a vaccine because the vaccine is "unnatural."
They've been doing that since the start (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Because unlike chicken pox, we have no idea how long COVID immunity might last, but we do have reason to believe it won't be anything like life long.
Re: (Score:2)
So you're saying parents should whack their kids in the head with a hammer just in case it might help something later?
Because that's about as likely to be helpful as deliberately exposing kids to COVID.
Re: (Score:2)
And speaking of people hit in the head with a hammer as a child...
3 reasons the idea is bad (Score:3)
Considering young people pretty rarely end up dying from COVID-19, why not get COVID-19 now to develop antibodies and resistance while young enough to survive it?
1. - SARS-CoV-2 is an RNA based virus and as most viruses in that category, is mutates. Current estimate of my colleagues [ncs-tf.ch] working on it (and that out group [github.io] seems to observe similar mutation rates too), it that it mutates at roughly 1:4 the speed of Influenza. And just like influenza, where 1 year later your antibodies are worthless because the virus doesn't look the same any more due to accumulated mutation, it thus means that even in the best case scenario (antibodies you produce after a COVID-19 are kept
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No. You may want to look into it if you don't want to appear so stupid next time. Flue mutates in a way to evade the immune system. Covid doesn't. No need for it to be intelligent. Evolution.
So flu has a brain and decides through thought to evade the immune system? You seriously believe that something which may or may not even be alive decides to change itself?
Re: (Score:2)
Getting run over by a car doesn't kill a young person in most cases. Most of the time, they survive. So why not go ahead and try to get run over by a car.
Re: (Score:2)
Because surviving COVID19 can cause what appears to be permanent changes in brain structure, nerve damage, loss of the senses of smell and taste, permanent lung damage, blood clots, and a variety of other peripheral effects that only now are becoming clear. Rather than being a respiratory illness like the common cold it may end up being considered a blood disorder.
So sure, infect yourself and everyone around you with a disease that is still not well understood and which we already know has long term effect
Re: (Score:2)
They're already doing COVID parties even without a vaccine. At least when parents did it with chicken pox, it actually worked and made sense (since chicken pox is a much milder disease in childhood and was known to provide life-long immunity).
Re:The problem is 30-40% of Americans (Score:4, Informative)
I'm waiting for some idiots to start doing what they were doing with chicken pox and having "COVID parties" to deliberately infect their kids
No need to wait. Follow citations in "Coronavirus party" on Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] to see where it's already been happening.
Re: (Score:2)
COVID-19 is not a threat to 99.9% of the population. If you don't have pre-existing health problems and you caught it, most likely you'd have the sniffles for a few days and that would be it.
You might want to look at demographics and prevalence of health conditions a bit more closely as more than 0.1% of the population is old or ill...
Re: (Score:2)
Nice false equivalence. Old != ill.
I said old or ill and made no such equivalence.
Literally 0.05% of the global population has died from COVID-19. It is an absolutely minuscule risk. You are more likely to get killed by lightning.
https://www.cdc.gov/disasters/... [cdc.gov]. The annual risk is 1 in 500,000 or 0.0002%, which is less than 0.05%.
Re:The problem is 30-40% of Americans (Score:5, Insightful)
"won't take a vaccine. So if the immune response is short lived then it's going to be really hard to put out the virus."
Why? The Antivaxxers get it twice a year, after 10 years, no more Antivaxxers.
Think of it as evolution in action.
Not good enough. (Score:5, Insightful)
When anti-vaxxers refuse to take vaccines, they put others at risk, including those who cannot take the vaccine for medical reasons, and those who do take the vaccine (since the vaccine does not produce total immunity).
So, their stupidity harms people other than themselves, which is why we need to at least try to educate them out of their stupid ideas. Simply waiting for them to die off will take too long and allow too much harm to be caused.
Re: (Score:2)
"So, their stupidity harms people other than themselves, which is why we need to at least try to educate them out of their stupid ideas. "
Good luck with that, they all suffer from the Dunning-Kruger Effect and will know everything better than you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
That is why most countries have mandatory vaxxing for the stuff that matters.
And COVID-19 will probably be added to that list.
It kills about .6 - 1% of the time (Score:3)
The way it was explained to me (by Beau Of the Fifth Column) is this: If you walked into a grocery store where 1 out of every 180 customer got shot and killed, would you go to that store?
Now, the virus does have long term side effects, so it's very likely we'll see a sea change in America (and I don't know any "nice" way to say this because it's all kinds of fucked up) as o
0.6 - 1%? (Score:2)
It kills about .6 - 1% of the time which if you're not bad at math you'll know that is an _insanely_ high rate for a disease. But, well, Americans are bad at math.
Huh? The COVID CFR in the US is 3%. What's your math that says it's 0.6 - 1%?
I'm using global numbers (Score:2)
Yes, these are the kinds of rhetorical techniques you need to win. We're basically at war with these jokers.
0 .6 - 1%? (Score:3)
I'm using global numbers not the ones from the US.
Huh? The global COVID CFR is 3.3%. What's your math that says it's 0.6 - 1%?
I'm intentionally understating the effect in America because if I don't a bunch of Alt-right and/or Russian trolls will pile on to say "rsilvergun is lying!".
So deliberately posting misinformation is going to stop trolls from saying "rsilvergun is lying"? How the fuck does that work? Common sense says posting wildly inaccurate numbers does just the opposite. And when you follow it up with "Americans are bad at math"...well you just look foolish.
Yes, these are the kinds of rhetorical techniques you need to win. We're basically at war with these jokers. /. is a solid battle ground because you've got a ton of centrist techies who want to vote Republican because they don't like being told what to do but they're smart enough to know better.
Slashdot is full of knowledgeable people that know math. If you think you're going to win anybody over on this site by posting faulty numbers
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And just how do you know that? When asked for an explanation, rsilvergun made no mention of taking under-reporting of cases into account. And 0.6 - 1% doesn't correspond to any data on under-reporting that I'm aware of. Maybe you can point me to a source that says there are 3.3 to 5.5 times more infected than reported.
Look, rsilvergun has a long history of posting wildly inaccurate stats on this site, and he has continued to repeat the same falsehoods even after being corrected. I call that lying. An
Re: (Score:2)
And just how do you know that?
Reading things.
Re: (Score:2)
Reading things? LOL, like what? rsilvergun's mind? You can't possibly know that rsilvergun was trying to take into account under reporting of cases when he posted his numbers. And of course there's his response, which makes no mention that he was trying to do what you say. Of all these "things" you say you've read, apparently you missed reading his reply.
Tell you what, if you've actually read something that says the true number of infected is 3.3 to 5.5 times more than reported, why don't you post a
Re: (Score:2)
Reading things? LOL, like what? rsilvergun's mind?
No, reports by places like the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine
Re: (Score:2)
I don't understand why you would want to make excuses for this guy.
I didn't. I posted a fact.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't. I posted a fact.
You're kidding, right? No, you didn't post a fact. You posted a theory. A theory about what completely bullshit numbers were supposed to represent. A theory that attempts to legitimize said bullshit numbers. A theory that has absolutely no evidence to support it, and has rather conclusive evidence against it.
Actually the current estimate is 0.4 to 0.7%, so rsilvergun is a bit out.
A bit out? If you go by the CDC estimate of under-reporting (6-24X), it's 0.125 to 0.5%. rsilvergun not only isn't the ballpark, he isn't even in the ballpark's parking lot.
Your numbers indicate
Re: (Score:2)
You're kidding, right? No, you didn't post a fact.
That the current estimate is 0.4 to 0.7% is a fact. The fact may be an estimate (which is not a theory). If you are going to debate with people at least try to get some grip on terminology.
A bit out? If you go by the CDC estimate of under-reporting (6-24X), it's 0.125 to 0.5%. rsilvergun not only isn't the ballpark, he isn't even in the ballpark's parking lot.
Your numbers indicate a 4.2X - 7.5X number of actual infections. Where did you get them?
London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
To make it easy for you: https://www.lshtm.ac.uk/resear... [lshtm.ac.uk]
There is NOTHING on that page that says cases are under-reported by 4.2X - 7.5X. I did a quick search of that site and found a reference [lshtm.ac.uk] to this paper, [nih.gov] which says actual cases are far far higher than your 4.2X - 7.5X numbers:
If you're going to "make it easy" for me, you should provide a link to an actual document that supports your claim, preferably with a relevant quote f
Re: (Score:2)
That the current estimate is 0.4 to 0.7% is a fact.
There may be an estimate claiming those numbers, but there are many [jamanetwork.com] many [nih.gov] more that say otherwise. But somehow your estimate is a "fact" and the others are not? LOL.
Even if your estimate is true, so what? rsilvergun didn't post those numbers, and you didn't post those numbers until after you said "I posted a fact." When you said that, you were referring to your first post on this matter, which was "The 0.6 to 1% statistic tries to take into account under reporting of cases."
Your statement is quite
Re: (Score:2)
...which are estimated to be 40% or more of COVID cases.
I don't really care if your 0.4 to 0.7% numbers are accurate or not. They don't come close to rsilvergun's 0.6 to 1% numbers which are 40 to 50% off. You can flail around all you want and try to say he was referring to actual data, but he wasn't. He pulled those numbers straight out of his ass, and said as much in his reply.
Re: (Score:2)
But somehow your estimate is a "fact" and the others are not?
It's not my estimate. It is a fact that it is one of the available, well researched estimates.
Even if your estimate is true, so what? rsilvergun didn't post those numbers, and you didn't post those numbers until after you said "I posted a fact." When you said that, you were referring to your first post on this matter, which was "The 0.6 to 1% statistic tries to take into account under reporting of cases."
The figure was close to the 0.4 to 0.7% so I didn't feel the need to go and post detailed references. I have now done so.
Your statement is quite clearly a theory, and a poor one at that.
How do you know it's poor? Could you post a link to your original research?
All I did was ask where those numbers came from. Your transparent attempt to put words in my mouth suggests that *you* are the one who needs to work on their debating skills.
You should understand the difference between a theory and an estimate. It's pretty fundamental stuff in science.
Re: (Score:2)
There may be an estimate claiming those numbers, but there are many.
So I looked at the second of your links, and the estimates of underreporting it shows for various countries are similar to those from the LSHTM, so I am not sure what point you are trying to make.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't really care if your 0.4 to 0.7% numbers are accurate or not. They don't come close to rsilvergun's 0.6 to 1% numbers which are 40 to 50% off.
0.4 to 0.7% overlaps with 0.6 to 1%.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not my estimate. It is a fact that it is one of the available, well researched estimates.
You have yet to point to a source that supports your numbers. If this estimate is so available, why haven't you posted it?
The figure was close to the 0.4 to 0.7% so I didn't feel the need to go and post detailed references.
Sure, if by "close" you mean "off by 50%"
I have now done so.
Really? Where? You've posted two links, one that makes no mention of under-reported cases, and another that doesn't take into account asymptomatic cases and says there's a world-wide under-reporting of cases by 1.4 - 17.8X
Even if rsilvergun posted your exact numbers, I DON'TCARE. The notion that he was referring to under-reporting of cases is
Re: (Score:2)
So I looked at the second of your links, and the estimates of underreporting it shows for various countries are similar to those from the LSHTM, so I am not sure what point you are trying to make.
Can you read? I guess not. Here, let me help you:
Estimate of the Case Ascertainment Ratio (CAR)
We show that the unaccounted cases exceed the reported by 10 to 20 fold
Does 10X - 20X sound like 4.2X - 7.5X to you? At this point, I wouldn't be surprised if it does.
Re: (Score:2)
Can you read?
I read the paper. It shows (with error bars) a variety of ratios for different countries. For some (e.g. Brazil) it is in the 10x to 20x range, and for others, it is not and is, indeed, in the 4.2 to 7.5x range, although quite what that has to do with IFRs directly I am not sure since CFRs vary by country as well. If you compare against the LSHTM paper the figures there are broadly in agreement for the countries represented, or at least the sample I compared as I didn't look at every single one.
I guess not.
I read the w
Re: (Score:2)
You have yet to point to a source that supports your numbers. If this estimate is so available, why haven't you posted it?
Sorry, I thought I'd posted the links to the LSHTM website, and so some of my comments about the similarity between your figures on under reporting may not have made sense, not the 0.4-0.7% figure. Apologies if I failed to hit submit on that post and I will dig out the links again.
Sure, if by "close" you mean "off by 50%"
They are figures with error bars. In some instances it is valid to compare the mean points with the presumption of a Gaussian distribution, but it is not a given. What you should actually do is determine the actual shape of the di
Re: (Score:2)
So in the entire section of the paper titled "Estimate of the Case Ascertainment Ratio (CAR)" there is *one* range of figures reported by the researchers (10X - 20X) and they make no mention of anything close to 4.2X - 7.5X anywhere in the entire text of their paper. Since according to you, the researchers data actually shows something close to a range of 4.2X - 7.5X, I guess those silly scientists forgot to mention it.
Sure man, whatever you say. Sounds plausible. Maybe you should contact them so they c
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, I thought I'd posted the links to the LSHTM website, and so some of my comments about the similarity between your figures on under reporting may not have made sense, not the 0.4-0.7% figure. Apologies if I failed to hit submit on that post and I will dig out the links again.
They are figures with error bars. In some instances it is valid to compare the mean points with the presumption of a Gaussian distribution, but it is not a given. What you should actually do is determine the actual shape of the distribution and the area of overlap. Since the ranges are reasonably tight and overlap it's not inaccurate to say they they are close. If the ranges were 1-50 and 49-99 then it would not be reasonable to call them close, but that isn't the case here. Without additional information we don't know if the 0.4-0.7% range is weighted to the upper or not, or the 0.6-1% figure to the lower. The probability that the real figure is the same may be very high. I'd suggest looking at sampling theory or other areas of statistics or metrology for background understanding.
BLAH BLAH BLAH. One more time: Even if rsilvergun posted your exact numbers, I. DON'T. CARE. The notion that he was referring to under-reporting of cases is shit. His own reply says so. It doesn't matter if his numbers "overlap" with what you think are the correct numbers. He wasn't referring to under-reporting, period. The only way you can say he was referring to under-reporting is if *you* are a *mind-reader* and his reply to me was a *lie*. Can you prove both those things?
I never said your estimate was a theory.
I have never said it was my estimate. Continuously claiming I said things that I didn't just makes you look foolish.
Your little semantics gam
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, I thought I'd posted the links to the LSHTM website, and so some of my comments about the similarity between your figures on under reporting may not have made sense, not the 0.4-0.7% figure. Apologies if I failed to hit submit on that post and I will dig out the links again.
They are figures with error bars. In some instances it is valid to compare the mean points with the presumption of a Gaussian distribution, but it is not a given. What you should actually do is determine the actual shape of the distribution and the area of overlap. Since the ranges are reasonably tight and overlap it's not inaccurate to say they they are close. If the ranges were 1-50 and 49-99 then it would not be reasonable to call them close, but that isn't the case here. Without additional information we don't know if the 0.4-0.7% range is weighted to the upper or not, or the 0.6-1% figure to the lower. The probability that the real figure is the same may be very high. I'd suggest looking at sampling theory or other areas of statistics or metrology for background understanding.
BLAH BLAH BLAH. One more time: Even if rsilvergun posted your exact numbers, I. DON'T. CARE. The notion that he was referring to under-reporting of cases is shit. His own reply says so. It doesn't matter if his numbers "overlap" with what you think are the correct numbers. He wasn't referring to under-reporting, period. The only way you can say he was referring to under-reporting is if *you* are a *mind-reader* and his reply to me was a *lie*. Can you prove both those things?
I never said your estimate was a theory.
I have never said it was my estimate. Continuously claiming I said things that I didn't just makes you look foolish.
Your little semantics games aside, I've got some news for you. As of now, it is YOUR estimate, since you have provided zero links/quotes from the LSHTM that says it's THEIR estimate. Instead of simply posting your source, you decided to type out a sermon on error bars, distributions, sampling theory, statistics and metrology. Nice work.
Thing is, I've never questioned the validity of YOUR numbers. All I did was point out that there are estimates out there that suggest a far higher number of actual vs reported infections. As I've said several times now, Even if rsilvergun posted your exact numbers, I. DON'T. CARE. Your claim that he was referring to under-reporting of cases is bullshit, and his reply to my inquiry on where his numbers came from proves it.
You said:
You're kidding, right? No, you didn't post a fact. You posted a theory.
I've explained to you multiple times now that I was not referring to your 0.4 - 0.7 figures as a theory, yet you keep repeating this ridiculous claim over and over and over. Here, let me help you once more: YOUR FIGURES ARE FACTUAL!!! However, your claim that rsilvergun was referring to under-reported cases when he posted his shit numbers is utterly false.
There. I validated your numbers, without you providing a shred of evidence for them, and didn't use the word "theory" at all. Feel better now?
I indicated the source of the estimate I provided. I realise it was a different message board that I posted the links. I will post them here when I retrieve them and grab direct quotes. However, your bizarre level anger confuses me.
Re: (Score:2)
You're confused all right, and you've been confused since your very first post. I'm angry? LOL, people like you are incapable of making me angry. At most, you're an annoyance. Let me give you some examples of why you're annoying:
You commented "I posted a fact", and the only things you had posted at that point were "The 0.6 to 1% statistic tries to take into account under reporting of cases." and "Reading things." You then post "Actually the current estimate is 0.4 to 0.7%", which I didn't reply to.
Re: (Score:2)
Follow the citations in "Political positions of Kamala Harris" on Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]. In third quarter 2017, second quarter 2018, and first quarter 2019 she co-sponsored various bills that would let Americans opt into Medicare or Medicaid without the old age or low income requirement. Harris also announced bills to create a task force to address racial disparity in COVID-19 treatment and expand access to SNAP for workers laid off as a result of the pandemic.
Re: (Score:2)
What would any of that do to slow the spread?
There are a fuck ton of people not getting tested (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What would you prefer? Widespread retraining of the public for professions deemed essential to sustaining life?
Biden & Obama left Trump a "Pandemic Playbook" (Score:5, Interesting)
If elected (based on the playbook) Biden will:
1. Do a pretty huge stimulus, allowing millions of Americans to stay home and slowing the spread of the virus.
2. Work with the rest of the world to contain the virus and develop Treatments & vaccines.
3. Strongly encourage, possibly mandate mask wearing.
4. Provide free healthcare during the pandemic by expanding the ACA.
5. Keep the ACA around and with it protection for pre-existing conditions. Let's not forget Trump's DOJ is trying overturn the ACA will most likely succeed. The only reason they haven't done it already is that Trump knows it would be political suicide to do it in Term 1, and he wants the Supreme Court (or rather his handlers in the GOP do).
I get that you're trolling. You're either an alt-right troll or a Russian one. Doesn't matter. Either way you do NOT want a second term of Trump. If you're an alt-right troll plan on the economy collapsing when the virus goes out of control and stays that way for the next 15-20 years (it'll take that long for the virus to kill enough old people to shift the Overton window left so that Progressives can fix the things your broke). If you're Russian, well, we'll be going to war with you. It'll crush our country's economy to do so, but we'll feed guys like you to an angry mob just like we did in Iraq. Our economy will eventually recover... on your backs. Again, just like we did to Iraq.
As a progressive I want none of that. None of the death. None of the imperialism and outright theft. None of it. Please, come to your senses. We Americans are *nuts*. You're playing with fire.
Go away alt-right troll (Score:2)
a. There is no such thing as "free stuff". We are a civilization. We make thing for use by humans and we are all human. Take that away and we are nothing but blood thirsty animals.
b. There's plenty of money, we just let 1% of the population have half of it before anyone else gets a crack. Margret Thatcher is a lie.
c. Paying people to stay home means your economy rebounds faster.
d. If we don't do something soon
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:2)
The Antivaxxers get it twice a year, after 10 years, no more Antivaxxers.
Except that they teach others to be antivaxers, so it doesn't stop.
Every generation is born ignorant and has to learn about this stuff. That means:
- Some of them learn bad things.
- We're never more than a generation or two away from a possible reemergence (usually under a different name and with slight changes) of ANY disastrous ideology.
Re: (Score:3)
This relapse thing seems very rare. Also there is a false positive rate for some Covid tests. If this person was only tested once before, what if that test was a false positive? Statistically it could happen -- there are millions of covid positive people .. if the false postive rate was even 1 in 1000 there's bound to be a few of that 1000 who test positive or actual catch it a "second time". Another explanation is that the original infection failed to clear fully, or the person's immune system is not norma
Re: (Score:1)
Also there is a false positive rate for some Covid tests.
There is also a false negative rate. The two balance each other out.
Re: (Score:3)
This sort of balancing of false alarms and missed cases applies to a population, not to an individual. The article is about individuals who appear to get reinfected.
In these reported cases they've usually sequenced (Score:2)
Again, everybody knows you can get it again, the question is how often does that happen and is the second infection worse? Also given that there are long term health consequences to getting sick how much risk is that going to mean?
The point is we don't know, and so we should be very, very cautious. Trouble being that there's a _lot_ of people who don't want other's to do that, because it's bad for them
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, they've started doing DNA sequencing and proving that at least some people are getting a second strain and others are getting the same strain. So, the current probability is that there's a bell curve of immunity and the near end is 4 months. Which means that idiots hoping for a herd immunity are never going to solve anything, as opposed to solving things after millions of deaths.
How could Covid-19 things be any worse? Easily. (Score:3)
I think you're getting ahead of yourself. We don't even know if an effective vaccine exists, let alone how long its effects will last. Maybe recovery from Covid-19 is only a transient state, but that's only one of many bad cases we still can't rule out.
Having said that, it wasn't a terrible FP, though not well focused on the story. Were you in a hurry to FP before the AC trolls? [Hence my change of Subject, even though I'm starting with your focus.]
In terms of reinfections, I think the primary link to Ameri
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I suspect that much of the problem here is that you have people who can't understand science and technology to begin with, don't have the intell
Anti-vaxxers aren't necessarily stupider (Score:2)
Even smart people do dumb things at times. I'm certain I have some mistaken beliefs, some of which I probably can't be reasoned with about.
The problem with anti-vaxxers isn't necessarily raw intelligence, or that they *can't* understand things. I'm sure they could have it explained to them if they were willing to listen.
It's that they reject the information, not that they can't understand it.
It's a different sort of mental trap that they are in than just not having the intelligence.
Here are some examples
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine:
- a little bit higher amount of hard cases
- a little bit higher amount of death
- a little bit higher rate of infection rate
In a country with a:
- dysfunctional government
- dysfunctional medical system
- dysfunctional health care system
We can be lucky that this virus is so relatively harmless.
Re: (Score:2)
Basically agree. The main one you left off that I was considering was a longer period of low-symptom contagiousness.
Re: (Score:2)
The main one you left off that I was considering was a longer period of low-symptom contagiousness.
Another place we got extremely lucky, is the relatively lower mortality among infants and children.
Increased morbidity and mortality among the very young is actually quite a common trait for respiratory virus epidemics. The number of life-years lost to COVID could easily have been much higher, had it not been for this atypical characteristic.
Re: (Score:2)
Part of me says call it 'evolution in action', but the other half of that equation is illegal: we aren't allowed to murder these idiots for being too gullible (falling for a troll-meme like 'vaccines are dangerous') or exile them from our society (drop them off in a life raft in international waters to fend for themselves) and frankly we'd be poor human beings even
Re: (Score:2)
Then of course there's the whole 'anti-science-in-general' movement, which I believe has organized religion behind it.
It's a byproduct of capitalism, though other systems have a similar problem. Big tobacco started it with battling the science that said smoking killed. Then the same was done about climate change, starting with attacking nuclear energy, and then the rest of the science behind it. As someone once said, "if your paycheck depends on not being convinced of the science, you won't be convinced". I'm probably paraphrasing.
It has also been compounded for political and religious ends.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Meanwhile your 'assumption' isn't any more accurate than anyone else 'assuming' anything; unless you're a doctor, scientist, or other academician or professional with a specialty in medical or biological sciences, your 'assumptions' and 'judgements' are pretty meaningless, being essentially an opinion.
Also, meanwhile, I'm not making any 'assumptions' whatsoever about why anyone died because I am n
Re: (Score:2)
Don't feed the troll.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think it is the binary guy and if you look at his posting history, you'll see it's best to ignore him.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You make some good points and I've put in enough time arguing with some of these accounts. Some are trolls or worse and some actually seem to believe what they're saying. This guy seems to be just contrarian. He'll state the sky is green, then in a different thread, that it is yellow and then in a different thread, that it is blue. End up wasting time pointing out he is wrong while others believe the sky is yellow-green and make seemingly reasonable arguments. I'd rather concentrate on the yellow-green beli
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The problem is 30-40% of Americans (Score:5, Insightful)
Er, the death toll numbers are "fake" in that they are inaccurate to some degree. All the CDC numbers mean is that some doctor put down "died of COVID" on the certificate. This is true about any reports on "cause of death". Nothing is 100% certain. I know it is hard for IT guys to accept, but real life is not a computer program where everything is deterministic.
I think the important thing to understand is that the same is true for every viral disease ever, so as long as you keep the methodology similar, you should have numbers that can be compared across disease families.
What's annoying is when folks use the standard methodology for influenza, but want to discount all the deaths with any comorbidity for COVID-19, and compare the two unrelated numbers in a deliberate attempt to make it look like COVID-19 killed fewer people than flu (which is only true if you are comparing against the 1918 pandemic).
Also, 11,000 healthy people dying of a virus might be a shock to you, but it happens in a country of 330,000,000 people. I am astonished how people act like this is the first virus ever encountered.
It's the first virus with that high a non-comorbid fatality rate since 1918. So it's certainly the first thing like this that almost anybody currently living has ever personally encountered.
Re: (Score:2)
It's the first virus with that high a non-comorbid fatality rate since 1918. So it's certainly the first thing like this that almost anybody currently living has ever personally encountered.
Not really, for example the last Corona virus, SARS, had about a 10% mortality rate. The difference was it was only infectious when people were sick. It was still hard to contain, but it was contained and the people who dealt with it have responded much better to this virus, which is also known as SARS II. Countries like S. Korea and Taiwan learned from SARS and have done much better with this virus, same with my Provincial Head of Health, who battled SARS in Toronto. Still the fact that this virus is so co
Re: (Score:2)
Literally every other virus ever.
Literally not every other virus ever. Only novel viruses. Once the human population of the world is exposed to a virus, some degree of immunity gets passed on for centuries. That's one of the reasons why 40 million people died from H1N1 in 1918, but only 284,000 died from H1N1 in 2009 despite poor vaccination rates. (The other big reason is increased medical use of oxygen.)
Yet you guys don't bat an eye when 480,000 Americans die of smoking every year.
Their choice. I don't like it, but ultimately it's their decision to smoke knowing that it will shorten their lives.
Or 860,000 of heart disease.
You know that a
Immune overresponse (Score:5, Informative)
There's just so much FUD out there about this virus that it's hard for even doctors to get good information because the treatment protocols are different in different areas and they're evolving so quickly.
Re: (Score:3)
If only it were that simple (Score:3, Informative)
people who get Covid-19 develop a healthy immune response replete with both antibodies (molecules that can block pathogens from infecting cells) and T cells (which help wipe out the virus).
I'm sure those college athletes who caught covid-19 are happy to know they have antibodies and T cells to go along with their heart inflammation.
"What we have seen is when people have been studied with cardiac MRI scans — symptomatic and asymptomatic COVID infections — is a level of inflammation in cardiac muscle that just is alarming," he said.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That story about college athletes having heart inflammation is a prime example of fake news. They've since published corrections [zerohedge.com], but nobody ever bothers going back to read those...
Re: (Score:2)
That story about college athletes having heart inflammation is a prime example of fake news. They've since published corrections [zerohedge.com], but nobody ever bothers going back to read those...
Someone mod this up
Once is not all (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
trump pushing that a vaccine might be available in November and that it readily available for everyone is not where the science deniers are.
really? (Score:3)
every time I hear the vaccine will need more than one shot or the antibodies goes away after a period of time, it reminds me of an animated superman movie. It is the one where Lex Luthor's team discovered the cure for cancer but Lex told them to redo it and fix it to require a lifetime of shots for more profit.
Are we being setup for future profits with all these types of articles?
Re: (Score:2)
If you would not live in a 3rd world country, a livelong requirements for a simple vaccine would not be an issue at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Not really, there is a well known "the governmetn is giving you a one time payment and taking your IP" endgame for the successful vaccine manufacturer.
As expected (Score:5, Interesting)
I recall, when this pandemic was first described as a coronavirus, scientists spelled out the expectations:
1) No lasting immunity, either because our bodies would not maintain antibodies, or because of mutations. In this respect, it was compared to rhinoviruses.
2) While considerable research had been done, nobody had successfully created a vaccine for coronaviruses
3) Anecdotal stories emerged early on supporting re-infection. The whistle-blower doctor in China supposedly fought off two bouts of infection, before succumbing to it on the third.
4) There are reasons why we do not keep producing antibodies that prevent infection through ACE2 receptors. this receptor has a purpose, and inhibiting its use for long periods of time is probably inadvisable.
5) We are starting to see signs that once it initially infects our bodies through the ACE2 receptors, it starts exploiting other ways to invade our cells and replicate.
The best case scenario is that we will likely have a vaccine, and require a booster, until COVID-19 is pretty much gone, and break it out when there are flareups. There will be no lasting immunity to this disease.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
We were actually well on the way to a vaccine (Score:4, Insightful)
It's extremely likely this wouldn't be happening if we had a health care system that wasn't driven by the profit motive.
2nd infection: not terribly unheard-of (Score:2)
Then there's also the fact that some people just have weak immune systems to start with, for one reason or another.
So I don't find it surprising that some people would
Lockdown (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Could a lockdown theoretically resolve this pandemic if sufficiently long/hard enough, or will there "always" be virus particles somewhere?
Is it possible? Yes. Is it practical? Probably not.
New Zealand and some small island nations in the Pacific are managing, but with difficulty.
Basically, if we could divide the world up into "quarantine zones" with minimal human interaction between them, large parts of the world could be declared COVID-19-free within a few years. I don't see that happening, it's just too heavy of a burden on most countries and all but impossible for some.
Anyhow, that would likely take longer than a worldwide vaccination
Re: (Score:2)
Even strong immunity isn't 100% (Score:1)
It's very rare, but some people can get chicken pox more than once in their lives. Granted, that is probably a "re-activation" like shingles rather than a true "re-infection."
Anecdotal evidence of occasional COVID-19 re-infections early after recovery doesn't concern me. What is important is knowing the probability of re-infection at various times after recovery - zero to 3 months, 3-6 months, 6-9 months, 9-12 months, etc. Is the immunity after 3 months is 99.999% that's great, if it's 99% that's still g
well duh (Score:2)
well duh if they just stopped testing like President Gropenfurher says then we wouldn't have all these darn cases!!1!
And vaccines?? It just so happens that the word "vaccine" starts with a "V", and do you know who doesn't have a "V" in their name?
BILL GATES, thats who!! You think thats a concidance, mr smarty science guy?
And where was Barack Obama on 9-11? Why wasn't he in the Oval Office? Someone should look very strongly at that!